GENERAL WELSH SAYS CUTS HARM AIR FORCE READINESS

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
Air Force Readiness Harmed by Steep Cuts, Welsh Says
By Claudette Roulo
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, July 18, 2013 - The rigid requirements of sequestration spending cuts have made it difficult for the Air Force to maintain readiness, the service's top officer said yesterday.

Speaking to CNN's John King at the annual Aspen Institute Security Forum in Aspen, Colo., Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III said each service has four major accounts: personnel, infrastructure and facilities, modernization, and readiness.

"We have had a great amount of difficulty recently doing anything about the infrastructure and facility costs -- we can't seem to get to a point where we can reduce those," he said. "We have not been able to reduce the people costs. In fact, the people costs have gone up exponentially over the last 10 years."

So, he said, sequestration requirements have driven the Air Force to look at modernization and readiness costs. "Those are the only places we have to take money from," Welsh said.

"We are trading modernization against readiness," he added. It's the only place we have to go for funding because of this abrupt, arbitrary mechanism that is sequestration -- and it's causing a real problem on the readiness side of the house and putting out ability to modernize over time at risk."

The civilian employee furloughs necessitated by the spending cuts are a problem for the Air Force for two reasons, Welsh said. "The first is a very human reason -- we have about 180,000 civilians in our Air Force. Those civilian airmen are integral to every mission we do, and in some cases, they are the mission -- they're the entire workforce."

About 150,000 of those civilians are being furloughed for 20 percent of the remaining fiscal year, he said. Most of them are lower-wage scale employees who are going to have trouble making ends meet, Welsh added.

From a corporate perspective, the Air Force is losing 70 million man-hours of work during the furlough period, he said. "That's going to leave a bruise," he added.

The Air Force and the Defense Department as a whole recognize that they have to be part of solving the nation's fiscal problems, Welsh said. But the department has to make overly steep cuts in the modernization and readiness account in the first two years of sequestration, he added, because personnel or infrastructure can't be cut quickly enough.

Impacts to operations already are being felt, Welsh said. "We've prioritized everything that we know about, ... but if something new happened, we'd be affected dramatically, because our ability to respond quickly is affected."

In his discussion with King, Welsh also addressed a number of recent headline-making events.

Recent leaks of classified material are a lesson re-learned, he said. The existing safeguards need to be adjusted based on these cases to ensure that personnel with access to classified information will protect it properly, he said.

"I think the key is [to] control access to information," he added. "Everybody doesn't need it, and you have to very carefully vet people who have the skills to operate on your networks because we know the cyber domain is now a huge vulnerability -- as well as an opportunity."

Solving the sexual harassment and sexual assault crisis will require the services and the Defense Department to partner with Congress, victims' advocacy groups, universities and experts around the country, the general said.

"I don't care who else has the problem; my problem is the United States Air Force. ... The trauma of this crime is to the entire institution," he said.

Last year, 792 sexual assaults were reported in the Air Force, he said.

"The real number is higher than that. ... According to our surveys, only about 17 percent of the people report it," the general told King. "If you take a look at one victim -- not 792, just one -- and you look at the pain, the suffering, the lifetime of anguish, ... this is horrible. And multiply that by 792 times, and it's appalling."

For the Air Force, Welsh said, it's not about addressing some spike in activity. It's about making lasting changes across the entire spectrum of the force.

"From trying to screen for predatory behavior," he said, "to deterring this kind of conduct from those idiots who become criminals ... who might not technically be ... violent predators, but they put themselves in situations where they take advantage of other people."

Turning to the situation in Syria, Welsh said sequestration would make implementing a no-fly zone there difficult. "It would take some time to do it right," he added, "because some of the units that we would use ... haven't been flying."

Because of continuing rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Air Force's overall readiness levels have been declining since about 2003, Welsh said.

"We had to back off a little bit on full-spectrum training ... where we try and simulate the most-difficult threat we can and train realistically," the general said. In addition, the Air Force was forced to use some readiness funds to pay for modernization, he added.

"The Air Force is old," Welsh said. "Our aircraft fleet is older, on average, than it's ever been. ... Modernization is not optional for the Air Force. We've got to modernize."

The F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter is imperative to the future of the Air Force, Welsh said. Upgrading the existing fleet may save money, he said, but it will not make it competitive.

"A fourth-generation aircraft meeting a fifth-generation aircraft in combat will be more cost-efficient," Welsh said. "It will also be dead before it ever knows it's in a fight.

"Not having the F-35 right now ... operationally makes zero sense to the warfighter," he continued. Russia and China are rushing to produce their own fifth-generation fighters, the general noted, "which will put our fourth-generation fleet at immediate risk."

Welsh said he doubts the United States will fight China or Russia in the next five years, "but the reality today is that about 53 different countries around the world fly Chinese or Russian top-end fighters."

And despite the drawdown in Afghanistan, the Air Force isn't going to get less busy. It still will perform intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions all over the world, Welsh said, and will be doing an airlift mission every 90 seconds, every hour of every day.

About 15,000 space operators will be providing missile warning for the United States, about 25,000 airmen will be on the nuclear alert mission, satellite operators will be flying about 170 different satellites and more than 50,000 airmen will be engaged in cyber command and control, Welsh said.

"Our Air Force does an awful lot of stuff behind the curtain that people don't really see," he added.

Readiness will be affected if personnel, health care and retirement costs are not reined in, Welsh said.

"We have to solve the problem," he added. "We just have to -- there's no other option. Or we'll be doing nothing but paying people in the next 20, 30 years. We won't be turning a wheel. ... There's no magic bucket you go to [in order] to get more money."

Welsh acknowledged "a certain ambivalence" about the Air Force among the American people, "because they really don't know everything we do. And it's easy to get disconnected."

In the areas around Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve bases, it's easier for the larger Air Force to stay connected to communities, he said. The civilian airmen come to work on base and live in the community, Welsh noted.

"So, we're actually better in those communities than we are anywhere else," he said, "and we have to figure out how to take that strength and expand it."

U.S. OFFICIAL SAYS FURLOUGH DECISIONS DIFFICULT

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Furlough Decision 'Arduous,' Official Says
By Claudette Roulo
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 31, 2013 - The Defense Department continues to look at ways to reduce or avoid furloughs, the acting undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness said today, but she added that "right now, unfortunately, the department will furlough civilian employees for up to 11 days."

"The decision to furlough the civilian employees was a very hard, arduous decision," Jessica L. Wright said, but it was based on preserving the readiness of the force.

"About 85 percent of our [civilian] force will be furloughed," Wright said, including teachers at Department of Defense Education Activity schools.

But preserving the integrity of the academic year was the central concern for the department, she added. Teachers will be furloughed for five days at the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year, she explained, but it is up to each superintendent to decide what days will be furlough days. Schools will be closed to students on those days, she said, and extracurricular activities scheduled for a furlough day will not be held that day.

"But, it's important to note that our summer school will be held this year, and that children will get a good academic year," Wright added.

The department has about 767,000 appropriated fund employees, said Navy Cmdr. Leslie Hull-Ryde, a Pentagon spokeswoman. About 652,000 are scheduled to be furloughed, she said, but that total will change as employees respond to furlough notices and final determinations are made. Appropriated fund employees include those employees who are not appointed by Congress or the president and who are paid by funds designated by Congress.

According to the Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service website, nonappropriated fund employees may be furloughed for business-based reasons "if the reduction in appropriated fund resources leads to a curtailment in [morale, welfare and recreation] or exchange business operations. ... Furloughs of NAF employees are processed under DOD NAF human resources policies and component procedures."

Furlough notices starting going out to appropriated fund employees May 28, Wright said.

"They will either be hand-delivered," she said, "because the employee must sign that they've received the furlough notice, or, if the employee is on leave, it could be sent [via] certified mail."

Civilians excepted from furloughs generally fall into specific categories, Wright said. Examples include civilians working in combat zones, personnel with safety-of-life responsibilities, wounded warrior caregivers and full-time sexual assault prevention and response coordinators and sexual assault victim advocates for the active and reserve components.

Employees who receive a furlough notice will have seven days to respond if they believe their duties fall into one of the excepted categories, Hull-Ryde said. Otherwise, furloughs will start no later than July 8. The furlough days will be spread over the remainder of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

Wright said she urges employees with furlough questions to reach out to their human resources department and to read the detailed guidance about furloughs on the Office of Professional Management's website.

The websites for the Labor Department and OPM can assist employees with questions about eligibility for unemployment compensation, Wright said. Those eligibility requirements differ from state to state, Hull-Ryde noted.

Not all states will be affected equally, Wright said. "The majority of our workers work outside the Washington, D.C., area," she noted.

More than 80 percent of the federal workforce is based outside the national capital region, Wright said. According to Defense Department figures, in the five states with the most federal employees -- California, Georgia, Maryland, Texas and Virginia -- workers will lose $819 million in wages due to furloughs.

Every employee's situation is unique, Wright said, but the bottom line is this decision was made to preserve readiness of the military force as a whole.

"Readiness is not a service-specific thing," she said, "It's a joint, departmental thing. "We made a very collective decision to be collective on this furlough -- that we would furlough the department as a whole."

Senior defense officials have stated that the effects of sequestration will be long-lasting. Uncertainty over whether sequestration will continue has made it difficult to know whether furloughs will continue into fiscal year 2014, Wright said.

"I think that next year is going to be a difficult year," she said. "We are in the process -- the department as a whole -- of working through some of the options for next year's budget. ... If sequestration is in effect, it will be very difficult, but we have not made a decision."

Pentagon officials will do "everything in our power" not to have to furlough employees, she added.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAGEL'S REMARKS AT TOWN HALL MEETING

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Director of Administration and Management Mike Rhodes
May 14, 2013
 
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFESE
Remarks by Secretary Hagel at the Town Hall Meeting with Department of Defense Personnel, Alexandria, Virginia

MIKE RHODES: Good afternoon. My name is Mike Rhodes, and I have the honor of serving as the director of administration and management for the Department of Defense. Welcome. Welcome to all of you here from so many organizations across the department housed here at the Mark Center, and also welcome to the many across the globe who are observing today's event online or on television through the Pentagon Channel. Thank you for your service to the nation, and thank you for your attendance today.

I've spent my entire career -- nearly 30 years -- with the Department of Defense. And I join each of you in having the greatest pride in our collective mission of national security and national defense. The past seven -- little over seven years, I've had the honor of serving at the Office of the Secretary of Defense. As a civil service career member of the secretary's staff, I feel that I've had a unique opportunity to observe our recent secretaries.

During that time, I've observed Secretary Hagel. I've observed him as he's focused on critical issues of the department, and I note that he has always done so with a keen interest in the impact on our people, our military and civilian personnel.

While I'm personally not surprised by it, I greatly respect his desire to come down here today to meet with us in person to discuss the difficult decisions regarding furloughs. It speaks volumes of who he is. I know that we all understand that the secretary can't explain the individual impacts and implications associated with these decisions, and in the days ahead, we're going to have to meet with our respective supervisors and talk with the human resources professionals to figure out some of those details. However, the secretary is here today to share his macro views and considerations.

He's going to take a few minutes after his remarks to answer some questions, and those will be fielded from the -- by the microphones that are set up in the aisle. So now it's my privilege to introduce our secretary.

Now, having served as a noncommissioned officer in the Army myself, I have to -- have to make sure and recognize the fact -- of the significant fact that Secretary Hagel is the first enlisted combat veteran to lead this department. In addition, he brings experience both from the private and the public sectors. He served in the Veterans Administration. He served in Congress. And he served with the United Services Organization, just to name a few.

Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming our 24th secretary of defense, the Honorable Chuck Hagel. (Applause.)

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE CHUCK HAGEL: Mike, thank you. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Hi. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Mike, I'm grateful for the introduction, and I'm grateful for what you do, and I'm grateful to all of you for what you each do individually and what you do together as a team to enhance this department, but more to the point, assure the security of this country. That's why I suspect you do this. You all have a lot of options in your lives. You will continue to have many options. But yet you -- you prefer to do this job.

There comes with this job, as you all note -- and I have always admired long before I had the privilege of serving with you as part of your team -- the purposefulness of your job. You're leading purposeful lives. We all, I think, strive to do that with our lives, in whatever abilities God has given each of us and how we develop those.

But to make a difference in the world is about as good as it can get. And in the end, when we inventory what we did with our lives, that's a -- that's a pretty significant question to ask yourself, because you ask yourselves and I ask myself every day, does it matter what we do? Does it matter what I'm doing, what each of us is doing? And it does.

I say that in the way of, first, thanking you and also recognizing that I know as secretary of defense what you do. I don't know every detail of everything you do every day. I don't need to. I know enough. And you don't often get recognized for that. So, thank you.

We're living at a difficult time. I was saying last night at a dinner off-the-record with a number of journalists, I don't know of a time in our history, especially in our lifetimes, when it has been more difficult to govern. I don't know when it has been more difficult to lead.

For all the reasons you know, the pressures that we have in our society, in the world, the threats, the complications, technology, it has really had an impact on everything. And in many ways, we are seeing institutions and, consequently, individuals come loose of their moorings. We're a transient society. When I was growing up in a little town -- little towns in Nebraska, I mean, you stayed in one place. I mean, your parents worked in the same state or maybe you moved to some different towns, but you were anchored to something. You didn't have technology in how you communicate. You communicated with each other. You talked to each other. You socialized with each other. You didn't have Facebook, and you didn't have Internet, and you didn't have the clippie little one-sentence deals that -- well, I'll e-mail you, which is, we're not going to go backward and I'm not -- my children may disagree -- I'm not a dinosaur.

It's all impacting on all of us in every way. And so we are living at a very difficult time. But yet it's a defining time. It's a time when we are truly building a new world order. And that's pretty significant. Not many generations, not many people ever have an opportunity in their -- in their careers, in their lifetimes to say they lived at such a time. We are living at such a time.

What comes out, I don't know. But I do know this: It will -- it will come out based on what we do. We have control of our own destiny. We can define our future. Yes, there are more uncontrollables today than ever before. Yes, there are more complications. Yes, there are more sophisticated threats.

But still, there isn't a country in the world like America. There is not a country in the world that's in our universe. It doesn't mean we're right. It doesn't mean we're better. It doesn't mean we're perfect. Not at all. But we have an amazing system for many reasons. If for no other, it is a system that allows us to self-correct. Just like each of us as individuals, we all know when we're maybe veering a little bit too far in different directions. And you self-correct. We have a system that allows us to self-correct.

Now, with all that said, I wanted to -- before I get into some of the comments I want to make and address specifically here, I wanted to make the overall point that what you're doing is important, it will continue to be important. Many, many people in the country recognize that, not just me. I'm just a passing steward on the stage. But as long as I'm here, I've got a responsibility, and that is not to let our country down, not to let you down. And you have the same responsibility to the country, not to me, not to me, but to the country, to that purposeful life that you have.

So I want to talk about something that I wish I didn't have to talk about today, and that is a decision I've made, which I suspect everybody's heard about it already and it's been coming, and that is the decision on furloughs.

Let me, before I get into specifics of that, make a couple of frame-up points. You know what the budget is about. You're all dealing with it every day. March 1st, we went into what as you all know as sequestration. That has produced a situation for us, Department of Defense, our budget, where we have found ourselves through sequestration about $30 billion short in our operations and maintenance account, the overall accounts. And there's another probably $7 billion to $8 billion in additional deficits in some of our other accounts. We're going to have to deal with that. We don't have any choice.

Over the last two-and-a-half months -- and that's how long I've been in this job -- I have worked every day with our comptroller, who's here today -- and he and his people deserve a tremendous amount of credit for working on this, because this has been a very difficult process. How do we minimize the pain for our people? That's the first -- the first priority, as well as why we're all here, and that is our core missions, readiness and protect this country. And I don't think anybody argues with that.

Now, how do we balance that and assure the security of this country and protecting our core missions and doing what's right, doing what's fair for our people? Because it doesn't make any difference how good equipment you have or how sophisticated or what the process is. Without people, it doesn't work. People are the most important asset any institution has.

So when we started this process when I got here two-and-a-half months ago, there was a very real -- more than possibility, but probability we were going to most likely have to look at a 22-day furlough decision. Through a lot of hard work by our leaders at every level in every service, both uniformed and civilian, and through a reprogramming effort that we got through, so -- that Bob Hale and his people could move money around in different accounts, we got that down to where we thought -- we were at 14. Then, we kept going back, and, finally, we got to a point where I could not responsibly go any deeper into -- into cutting or jeopardizing our core missions on readiness and training, and I just couldn't do any more.

That means that I've made a decision that we'll go forward with furloughs starting July 8th of 11 days. If we can -- if we can do better, as we get through the front end of this over the next few months, then -- then we might be in a position to be able to -- to knock that back. I can't promise that; I won't promise that. You deserve fair, honest, direct conversation about this. And I'm not going to be cute with you at all. This is -- this is where we are.

We'll continue to look at it. We're going to continue to do everything we can. We have cut maintenance. We have cut training. You probably know, because you're all involved in some capacity of this, of our Army training is done for the fiscal year. We've had to bring wings down. We've had to idle ships. There will be exceptions to this. The exceptions will be based on law, will be based on readiness and essential components to the civilian workforce, and we've gone through all of that. We've gone through all that many times over. We'll follow OPM guidelines.

I said when I first got here on this issue, I knew we would be faced with this. Everybody knew it. But -- and I instructed all of our leaders that we've done it this way, we have to be fair. And I have had various options to look at. I've looked at all of them. I had different recommendations from all the services, all the civilian leaders. But what guided me on this, after the realization that we had to make some tough choices, we've got to be fair. And everybody has to be treated the same here, except for those exceptions where there -- there is an essential role that they play.

We've evaluated that on law. We've evaluated that on readiness. We've evaluated that on core missions. As I said, if we can do better -- and we'll continue to search for ways to do better -- but right now, I can't -- I can't run this institution into the ditch. This will go until the end of the fiscal year.

We've taken it as close to the line as we can. And still capable of protecting this country and this country's interests around the world. We still have a war going on. Unfortunately, we still have casualties. We've got a lot of very dangerous, unpredictable places in the world, and I can't put this country in jeopardy by not factoring that in, in the end, as the overall most significant responsibility, as well as treating our people right, is treating our people fair.

Difficult choice, but we had to make it. And we -- I tried everything. We did everything we could not to get to this -- this day, this way. But that's it. That's where we are. And I think, at this point, let me -- let me end and, again, thank you for everything you do and recognize, as I go to questions next, I know, the leaders of this institution know the hardship this decision puts on everybody and your families. We're not unmindful of that. And that's the most distressing part of this decision. We recognize that. And I'm sorry about that.

But I've got to be honest and deal with the facts. You deserve honesty. You deserve the facts. And I appreciate what you're doing. And I know this is going to be difficult, but we'll get through this. And I said everyone going in, we're going in together, we're coming out together. No one service, no one's going to be protected more than anybody else. Budgets are different, and everybody's budget's a little different, but we're all in this together. And I can't allow this great institution that does so much for our country, with such great tradition and history, with such great people, to get picked apart inside by each other, and I won't -- I won't allow that to happen.

So with that, thank you for giving me an opportunity to come by this afternoon and giving me the opportunity to thank you. I would take questions now. I sure as hell would like some advice. (Laughter.)'

Yes, ma'am? Yes.

Q: (OFF-MIC)

SEC. HAGEL: I'm sorry. What is what?

Q: (OFF-MIC)

SEC. HAGEL: What's the status of raises? Is...

Q: (OFF-MIC)

SEC. HAGEL: Oh.

Q: (OFF-MIC)

SEC. HAGEL: Well, I'm going to give you an honest answer. I don't know about any raises going forward. I think we've got to get through this. We've got to get through what we've got right now. And I know that the civilian employees have not had raises in three years, and I know that. That's why it's even more difficult to have to come out here today, and all the people in the Pentagon Channel, around the world, and have to make this announcement.

Recognize you've had three years of sacrifice. I get that. I get that. All I can tell you is, I will do everything I can to try to get us in a position, working with the Congress, trying to help as much as I can to promote, which I do, which our people do, some kind of an agreement between the Congress and the president, so -- so that we can find a new budget center of gravity here that we can eliminate where we are.

That's not my -- that's not my decision. This is a big decision by a lot of people in order to get there. So I'm sorry I can't give you a better answer, but I'm not going to tell you something that's just not true.

Bob Hale, our comptroller, may help me out here. (Laughter.)

UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT F. HALE: (OFF-MIC)

SEC. HAGEL: I'll repeat what he said. And I should have said this, but I just assumed you knew this. You know, in the budget proposal, what the president's budget for F.Y. 2014 proposed, what I testified about, and all of our people, we have asked for a 1 percent raise. Now, it's up to the Congress whether that happens or not, but -- thank you, Bob. I should have said that, but I just assumed you knew -- maybe you didn't know that.

But the president has asked for a 1 percent raise in his budget request, and we, of course, supported that, and I testified to that, as well as all of our leadership. That's why he -- that why he's the comptroller. (Laughter.)

Yes?

Q: Good afternoon. My name is Jennifer Hayes, and I work for WHS HRD. And I know that we have to deal with the situation at hand, like you've said, but going forward, is there any protection for us as federal workers that we won't have to endure something like this again? Or will we have to deal with this again next year? As a federal employee, we have took a great deal of hits in the -- in these past couple of years. So it's a great interest to a lot of us.

SEC. HAGEL: Well, your question's an important question. And I would give you this answer, because it's the best answer I can give you. I can't guarantee you that we're not going to be in some kind of a similar situation next year. I'm not predicting it. I'm not saying that that's going to happen. But what we're doing here is we're just trying to survive and get through this fiscal year.

I would hope -- but you can't run an operation, you can't lead an operation, you can't have so many people dependent and the country dependent on leadership based on hope. I hope that we will be in a better situation all the way around. I've got some confidence that that will occur. But I'm not going to stand here and promise you that it won't.

So we're dealing with what we've got to deal with in front of us right now. We're all trying to get to some high ground for FY 2014, which, as you know, begins October 1st, and then we'll see.

But I know that's not a good answer. No one likes uncertainty. It's a dark cloud that hangs over everybody's lives. I know for your families, I know for every part of your lives, it's not a good answer, but it's an honest answer. We will do everything possible not to -- not to have to be in this situation again, but a good amount of this is out of our control, too. Thank you.

Yes?

Q: Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I'm John Bell with OIG. I know some other large agencies have managed to make cuts without resorting to furloughs by cutting their contracting. For example, the Department of State, I know, has done that, isn't going to be furloughing any employees. Is there any possibility that DOD could use those strategies going forward to reduce the number of days or eliminate them altogether? Thank you.

SEC. HAGEL: Thank you. And it's a question that we -- we went into great detail, great depth, great width on. In fact, there are a number of adjustments on this in that general area of contracts and acquisitions and procurement and other accounts. But we did explore it at every, every level. I asked -- that was one of the first questions I asked, was your question.

So we looked at this in every way we could possibly look at it. Bob Hale and people in all the different agencies in the leadership have spent many weekends -- and still do -- going through this. They would come back to me on a Monday or Tuesday and I'd send them back. I'd say, "Go back. Find it somewhere else."

But I think we are -- not I think -- I have confidence that we are running now right to the edge where I just can't hold back any more. I had to make a decision for the good of the security of this country and for everybody. But believe me, we looked at everything, including your question.

All right. Well, again, I wish I could end on a -- oh, we got -- no. We do have somebody back there. Okay.

Q: Hello.

SEC. HAGEL: Hi.

Q: Now that we know that we'll have 11 furlough days, will it be two furloughs per pay period? Or will it be one furlough per pay period?

SEC. HAGEL: We're looking at -- and I don't want to get too deep into how we're going to administer it, because all your supervisors should have by now -- or will this afternoon, I think -- get directions and instructions on all these specific questions, yours being one of them.

But I think what they're thinking about -- and, Bob, just -- it's two per pay period, right? So that'd be, what, one per week? Yeah. But I think that's the general guideline, is that right?

But your supervisors, all the leaders of your institutions will have the specific guidelines on this. And I know there's -- there will be questions. I know that. We've tried to think through every possible question, and we've got a lot of pieces to this. We've got unions and we've got different authorities. We're dealing with all of them. We've been today talking with all these different authorities, Capitol Hill, think-tanks, the White House, so that what I'm saying to you today is being rolled out with all these different authorities, all day today.

But to your specific question, I think it's two days per pay period, so that -- one day a week. But -- but you will be able to work those things out with your -- with your supervisors.

All right. Well, again, I'm sorry I have to come to you today on this. But thank you. I'm grateful. Our president's grateful. Our country's grateful. And we'll get in, we'll do what we got to do, we'll get out, we'll get on the other side of this, and we'll get it turned around.

And my -- my thoughts and prayers are with your families. And thank your families for -- for what they do. I've always thought families always take the brunt of everything. And I'm not unaware of that, nor is the president or the leadership of our institution. So God bless your families. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

PENTAGON OFFICIAL SAYS BUDGET CUTS LIMIT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT



Credit:  U.S. Air Force. Launch Of GPS Satellite.

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Budget Reductions Limit Science, Tech Development, Official Says

By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, April 18, 2013 - The Defense Department's research and engineering department faces the same challenges the rest of the department does due to limitations caused by sequestration spending cuts, a senior Pentagon official said today.

Alan R. Shaffer, acting assistant secretary of defense for research and engineering, was joined by Arati Prabhakar, director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, before the Senate Armed Services Committee's subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities to talk about their part of the fiscal year 2014 defense budget request.

Shaffer said he represents scientists and engineers from DOD, a group that "conceives, develops and matures systems" early in the acquisition process.

"They work with multiple partners to provide the unmatched operational advantage employed by our services' men and women," he said. "As we wind down in Afghanistan, the national security and budget environments are changing."

The president's fiscal 2014 budget request for science and technology is $12 billion -- a nominal increase from fiscal 2013's $11.9 billion, Shaffer said, noting that it isn't possible to discuss the budget without addressing the impact of sequestration, "which takes 9 percent from every single program" in research, development, testing and evaluation.

"This reduction will delay or terminate some efforts," he said. "We will reduce awards. For instance, we will reduce university grants by $200 million this year alone."

Potentially, he added, the number of new SMART Scholarships —an acronym that stands for science, mathematics and research for transformation -- could go down to zero, and sequestration cuts will cause other limitations for research and engineering departments.

"Because of the way the sequester was implemented, we will be very limited in hiring new scientists this year, and the [next] several years," he said.

Each of these actions, Shaffer said, will have a negative long-term impact on the department and to national security.

"The president and secretary of defense depend upon us to make key contributions to the defense of our nation," he said. "[Science and technology] should do three things for national security."

Shaffer said science and technology should mitigate current and emerging threats and that the budget should build affordability and affordably enable current and future weapons systems to operate.

Also necessary, he said, is developing "technology surprise" to prevent potential adversaries from threatening the United States.

"In summary, the department's research and engineering program is faced with the same challenges as the rest of the DOD and the nation," he said, "but our people are performing."

Prabhakar focused on DARPA's goals in her testimony.

"[Our] objective is a new generation of technology for national security, and to realize this new set of military capabilities and systems is going to take a lot of organizations and people," she said.

"But DARPA's role in that is to make the pivotal early investments that change what's possible," she added. "[This] really lets us take big steps forward in our capabilities for the future."

The director said DARPA is investing in a host of areas to include building a future where war fighters can have cyber as a tactical tool that's fully integrated into the kinetic fight.

"And we're building a new generation of electronic warfare that leapfrogs what others around the world are able to do with widely, globally available semiconductor technology," she said.

"It means we're investing in new technologies for position, navigation and timing, so that our people and our platforms are not critically reliant as they are today on GPS," Prabhakar said.

The director also noted DARPA is investing in a new generation of space and robotics, advanced weapon systems, new platforms, and a new "foundational" infrastructure of emerging technologies in different areas of software and electronics, and material science.

The aim, Prabhakar said, is to create real and powerful options for future commanders and leaders against whatever threats the nation faces in the years ahead.

"And that work is the driver behind all of our programs," she said. "It's the reason that the people at DARPA run to work every morning with their hair on fire. They know that they're part of a mission that really does matter for our future security as a country.

INTEL OFFICIAL SAYS SEQUESTRATION CAUSED INTELLIGENCE DEGRADATION WILL BE "INSIDIOUS"

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Cuts Make Intelligence Failures Likely, Top Intel Official Says
By Claudette Roulo
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, April 18, 2013 - Speaking to a Senate panel about the effects of sequestration on the national security environment, the director of national intelligence said today that he's "seen this movie before."

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on current and future worldwide threats, James R. Clapper said he served through the last round of budget cuts 20 years ago.

"And we were then enjoined to reap the peace dividend occasioned by the end of the Cold War," he said. "We reduced the intelligence community by about 23 percent. During the mid and late '90s, we closed many CIA stations, reduced [human intelligence] collectors, cut analysts, allowed our overhead architecture to atrophy, neglected basic infrastructure needs such as power, space and cooling, and let our facilities decay. And most damagingly, we badly distorted the workforce."

The intelligence community has spent the last decade rebuilding, Clapper said, but, with sequestration, another damaging downward spiral looms.

"Sequestration forces the intelligence community to reduce all intelligence activities and functions without regard to impact on our mission," the nation's senior intelligence officersaid, adding that the cuts jeopardize the nation's safety and security, and that the jeopardy will increase over time.

"Unlike more directly observable sequestration impacts like shorter hours at the parks or longer security lines at airports," he said, "the degradation to intelligence will be insidious. It will be gradual and almost invisible until, of course, we have an intelligence failure."

In his 50 years of intelligence experience, Clapper told the senators, the country has never "confronted a more diverse array of threats, crises and challenges around the world."

This makes the mandatory budget cuts imposed by sequestration "incongruous," he added.

The world is changing, Clapper said, and the threat environment along with it. "Threats are more interconnected and viral," he said. "Events which, at first blush, seem local and irrelevant can quickly set off transnational disruptions that affect U.S. national interests."

Threats in the cyber realm can come from both state and nonstate actors, he said, and their danger to global security "cannot be overstated."

Climate, disease and competition for natural resources have huge national security implications, Clapper said

"Many countries important to U.S. interests are living with extreme water and food stress that can destabilize governments, force human migrations and trigger conflicts," he said.

And while al-Qaida and the potential for a massive coordinated attack on the United States may be diminished, he said, the jihadist movement is now more diffuse and still determined to attack.

The rise of new governments and ongoing unrest in the Arab world creates openings for extremists, Clapper told the senators. Opportunistic individuals and groups can take advantage of diminished counterterrorism capabilities, porous borders, easy availability of weapons and internal stresses, he explained.

In Iran, the technical expertise to enrich uranium and build nuclear reactors and ballistic missiles continues to develop, Clapper said. Tehran has the scientific, technical and industrial capability to build missile-deliverable nuclear weapons, he continued, but the central question is whether it has the political will to do so.

"Such a decision, we believe, will be made by the [Iranian government's] supreme leader, and at this point we don't know if he'll eventually decide to build nuclear weapons," Clapper said.

"The increasingly beleaguered [Syrian] regime, having found that its escalation of violence through conventional means is not working, appears quite willing to use chemical weapons against its own people," he said. "We receive many claims of chemical warfare use in Syria each day and we take them all seriously, and we do all we can to investigate them."

Countries throughout the Middle East and North Africa are experiencing violence and political turmoil, he said, leading to civilian casualties and economic dislocation. Some 3.6 million Syrians have been displaced, and an additional 1.3 million have fled the country, Clapper said, noting that the refugee flow is placing pressure on neighboring countries.

"Moving to Asia, the Taliban-led insurgency has diminished in some areas of Afghanistan but is still resilient and capable of challenging U.S. international goals," he said. "The coalition drawdown will have an impact on Afghanistan's economy, which is likely to decline after 2014."

And in Pakistan, which faces no real prospects for sustainable economic growth, Clapper said, "the government has not instituted much-needed policy and tax reforms." On a more positive note, he continued, the Pakistani military continues its efforts to eliminate the al-Qaida and Taliban safe havens in the federally administered tribal areas.

China continues to supplement its military capabilities by strengthening its maritime law enforcement efforts in support of its claims in the South and East China Seas, he said.

"Closer to home," Clapper continued, "despite positive trends toward democracy and economic development, Latin America and the Caribbean contend with weak institutions, slow recovery from devastating natural disasters and drug-related violence and trafficking."

The intelligence director concluded his testimony by repeating his warning about sequestration spending cuts.

"So in sum, given the magnitude and complexity of our global responsibilities, insightful, persistent and comprehensive intelligence, at least in my mind, has never been more important or more urgent," he said. "So I have trouble reconciling this imperative with sequestration."

GENERAL DEMPSEY SAYS SEQUESTRATION NOT YET A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Dempsey: Sequestration Not Yet a National Security Threat
By Claudette Roulo
American Forces Press Service

BAGRAM AIRFIELD, Afghanistan, April 6, 2013 - Sequestration will have no effect on the drawdown in Afghanistan, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said yesterday.

"[Sequestration] is an avalanche, not a light switch," Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey said in a roundtable discussion with members of the press traveling with him on his trip to Afghanistan.

The avalanche started March 1, he said, and is building momentum. "We're consuming readiness without building it, because we are taking the money that we would normally have used to build readiness of units that might deploy a year from now and we've had to apply it into our wartime operations," Dempsey said. Additionally, the chairman said, the department is supporting commitments on the Korean Peninsula and the Persian Gulf.

"When you fence that off and fully fund it -- and you have to fence it off, we've got young men and women out there in harm's way and they will always be fully funded -- when you do that, though, the risk you take begins to accrue," Dempsey said.

By 2014 the department will face medium-term problems in maintaining readiness, he said. "The problems we've got are multiplying and will multiply over time," Dempsey added.

"We will always do what we have to do to protect the nation and its interests," the chairman said. For example, he continued, the theater air defense system recently placed in Guam was costly, "but it never crossed our mind not to do it because we wanted to save the money."

"Money is not a factor when our national interests are threatened," he said, "but readiness is something that has to be sustained over time." The cost of requalifying certain service members, like pilots, due to interruptions to training can actually cost more than the training itself would have, the chairman noted.

"The one thing that I would never do -- and I know [Defense] Secretary [Chuck] Hagel feels the same way -- is we're never going to deploy a service man or woman who's not ready to deploy," he said.

"Sequestration is not a risk to our national security at present," the chairman said. " ... But the uncertainty does make us less efficient [and] it sends a very negative message to our men and women who serve."

The department will get through the readiness challenge, he said, but the next challenge could be retention. Service members won't stay in the military if they can't do their jobs, the chairman said.

U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAGEL ANNOUNCES FEWER CIVIILAIN FURLOUGH DAYS

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Hagel Announces Fewer Furlough Days for Civilians
By Nick Simeone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 28, 2013 - The Defense Department has revised from 22 to 14 the number of days hundreds of thousands of civilian employees could be furloughed this year because of the budget sequester, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced today.

In addition, a senior Defense Department official speaking on background told reporters the start of the furloughs will be delayed until mid-to-late June, after more than 700,000 department employees receive furlough notices now set to go out in early May. Furloughs would happen over seven two-week pay periods until the end of September, when the current fiscal year ends, the senior official said, with employees likely to be told not to come to work for two days during each of those pay periods.

Department officials say they are still working to determine which employees might be exempted.

Hagel characterized the reduced furloughs as well as a revised estimate of sequestration's impact on the defense budget as good news. The changes follow Congressional approval last week of a defense appropriations bill that prevented an additional six billion dollars in cuts, ordered under sequestration, from taking effect.

"It reduces a shortfall at least in the operations budget," the secretary told reporters at a Pentagon news conference. "We came out better than we went in under the sequester, where it looks like our number is $41 billion [in cuts] now versus the $46 billion."

But despite a Congressional reprieve, Hagel said the Pentagon is still going to be short at least $22 billion for operations and maintenance, "and that means we are going to have to prioritize and make some cuts and do what we've got to do," including making sharp reductions in base operating support and training for nondeployed units.

More critical in the long run, he said, is how budget cuts will affect readiness and the department's overall mission. Because of that concern, he said he has directed Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to conduct an intensive department-wide review of U.S. strategic interests including how to protect the nation with fewer resources. "How do we prioritize the threats and then the capabilities required to deal with threats?" he said. "There will be some significant changes, there's no way around it."

Dempsey said the department has already exhausted 80 percent of its operating funds halfway through the fiscal year and characterized the current budget situation as "not the deepest, but the steepest decline in our budget ever," and warned it will affect military readiness into the future.

"We will have to trade at some level and to some degree our future readiness for current operations," the chairman said. He called on elected leaders to give the Pentagon the budget flexibility it needs to carry out institutional reforms.

"We can't afford excess equipment," Dempsey said. "We can't afford excess facilities. We have to reform how we buy weapons and services. We have to reduce redundancy. And we've got to change, at some level, our compensation structure."

U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PANNETTA NOTIFIES CONGRESS OF CIVILIAN FURLOUGHS

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Panetta Notifies Congress DOD Preparing for Furloughs
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20, 2013 - Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has notified Congress that the Defense Department is prepared to implement furloughs for civilian personnel in response to the threat of sequestration.

In a memo to all employees, Panetta vowed to continue working with Congress to avoid sequestration, which would add $470 billion to the $487 billion in defense spending cuts the department already is making over the next 10 years. If Congress cannot agree on an alternative deficit reduction plan, the cuts go into effect March 1.

Panetta and every other defense leader have called the cuts dangerous. They would come on top of cuts imposed by operating under a continuing resolution. For fiscal year 2013, the effect will be further magnified, because the cuts must be done in the final six months of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

"In the event of sequestration, we will do everything we can to be able to continue to perform our core mission of providing for the security of the United States," Panetta wrote in the memo, "but there is no mistaking that the rigid nature of the cuts forced upon this department, and their scale, will result in a serious erosion of readiness across the force."

Panetta and DOD leaders long have expressed deep concern about the direct impact sequestration will have on military personnel, civilian employees and families. Flexibility in sequestration is limited, the secretary said in his memo, noting that while military personnel are exempt from direct impact, services on bases will deteriorate, and families may feel the pinch in other ways.

Civilian employees will be furloughed if sequestration is triggered. Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said last week that civilian employees could lose 20 percent of their normal income through September.

"I can assure you that, if we have to implement furloughs, all affected employees will be provided at least 30 days' notice prior to executing a furlough, and your benefits will be protected to the maximum extent possible," Panetta wrote.

DOD will work to ensure furloughs are executed in a consistent and appropriate manner, the secretary said, and Pentagon officials also will continue work with employee unions.

"Our most important asset at the department is our world-class personnel," Panetta wrote. "You are fighting every day to keep our country strong and secure, and rest assured that the leaders of this department will continue to fight with you and for you."

GENERAL ODIERNO TELLS SENATE COMMITTEE THAT SEQUESTRATION WOULD HARM MILITARY READINESS

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Odierno: Sequestration Would Impact Army Readiness
By Cody Starken
Army News Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 12, 2013 - Furloughs, budget cuts and curtailment of training would significantly impact Army readiness if the billions of dollars in spending cuts triggered by sequestration are allowed to take place March 1, Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Ray Odierno told lawmakers Tuesday.

Odierno, along with other senior defense and military leaders testified on the impact of sequestration before the Senate Armed Services Committee. "The fiscal outlook that the Army faces in fiscal year 13 is dire, and to my knowledge, unprecedented," Odierno said.

Since 2008, the total Army budget will have been reduced by 37 percent. If sequestration is enacted, it will be greater than 45 percent. This reduces the ability to reset the force, and delays modernization programs the Army currently funds, he said.

"We simply cannot take the readiness of our force for granted. If we do not have the resources to train and equip the force, our soldiers, our young men and women, are the ones who will pay the price, potentially with their lives," Odierno said.

The Army will also have constraints on military training and readiness, Odierno said. Even though current military personnel are spared, civilian employees will be affected through layoffs and furloughs. An Army-wide hiring freeze is already in effect, and about 3,100 temporary and term employees have been terminated.

Sequestration will mean curtailing training of 80 percent of ground forces, affecting basic war-fighting skills. It could also introduce a critical shortfall in areas such as aviation, intelligence and engineering, Odierno said.

Local business will be affected as well. "In the Army, we are going to have to reduce purchase orders from 3,000 small companies," said Odierno. "From an Army perspective, it will hit the small companies" an impact that he predicted would be devastating.

Gen. Frank Grass, chief of the Army National Guard told lawmakers "In the area of personnel: a government, civilian, and military-technician hiring freeze compounded by a 22-day furlough will limit our ability to train and maintain our National Guard forces."

Those testifying Tuesday urged lawmakers to prevent sequestration from occurring.

"I know what it takes to prepare this nation's sons and daughters for war. I know what it takes to grow leaders in our Army. I know what is required to send Soldiers into combat, and I've seen the consequences when they are sent unprepared," said Odierno.

SEQUESTRATION WILL CUT B-52 FLYING HOURS BY 10%



A B-52 Stratofortress flies April 20, 2011, during an eight-hour sortie to practice bomb-dropping sequences and aerial refueling. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Andy M. Kin)

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Air Force Nuclear Force Anticipates Budget Constraints
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6, 2013 - The Air Force Global Strike Command predicts budget cuts triggered by sequestration will reduce B-52 flying hours by 10 percent and lead to a 20 percent reduction in overall flying hours should the law kick in on March 1, Air Force Lt. Gen. James M. Kowalski said.

Kowalski, the commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, spoke to reporters at the Defense Writers Group here today.

The command handles two parts of the nation's nuclear triad: manned bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The general said he's satisfied with readiness in the command today, but the fiscal problems confronting the military in the months and years ahead would, at best, cause readiness to level off or decline.

"As we look downstream at the continuing impacts of both the continuing resolution and sequestration, it's pretty clear there's going to be some degradation there," he said.

The biggest and most disturbing impact for the command is on flying hours, Kowalski said.

"We are looking at up to a 20-percent reduction in flying hours," he said.

One defense is to keep the sortie count high, Kowalski said, because the importance of flying hours is not just the time in the air for aircrews. Sorties exercise the entire process, he said, generating aircraft, fueling aircraft, arming bombs, recovering the aircraft, the maintenance of the aircraft and so on.

"All of that is exercised because that's what we pick up and deploy to a forward operating base," Kowalski said. "What we want to do is maintain the sortie count to maintain readiness across all of those."

The general said he's carefully keeping an eye on personnel issues in the command as well. There is an issue with airmen in the missile fields, he said, noting this is remote duty and there are concerns about the suicide rate among these personnel.

Reenlistment has not been a problem within Global Strike Command to date, Kowalski said. Part of the willingness to reenlist may be tied to the state of the economy, he said, and part of it is because the young airmen believe in the mission.

"All of those folks are going to continue to do a great job, but they need to know what to do and they need to know that what they are doing is important," Kowalski said. "We have been very active in reminding them of the job's importance."

The force structure may change in the command, the general said, but it doesn't change the basic mission for the command.

"This is one of the most important missions in the military -- to make sure that the nuclear inventory remains safe, secure and effective," Kowalski said.

PRESIDENT OBAMA ASKS CONGRESS TO STOP SEQUESTRATION

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFESNE
Obama Calls on Congress to Avoid Sequestration
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
 WASHINGTON, Feb. 5, 2013 - President Barack Obama today called on Congress to avoid deep, across-the-board spending cuts looming March 1 under a "sequestration" mechanism in budget law and to take a balanced approach to America's debt problems.

If sequestration happens, hundreds of thousands of Defense Department civilian employees could be furloughed and readiness of the military force will plummet, Pentagon officials have said.

The American economy is poised to make progress in 2013, the president said in remarks at the White House today, but sequestration could put an end to any forward movement.

"We've seen the effects that political dysfunction can have on our progress," Obama said. "The drawn-out process for resolving the 'fiscal cliff' hurt consumer confidence. The threat of massive automatic cuts [has] already started to affect business decisions."

While it is critical for the U.S. government to cut wasteful spending, "we can't just cut our way to prosperity," Obama said.

"Deep, indiscriminate cuts to things like education and training, energy and national security will cost us jobs, and it will slow down our recovery," he added.

The president emphasized that sequestration does not have to happen.

"For all of the drama and disagreements we've had over the past few years, Democrats and Republicans have still been able to come together and cut the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion through a mix of spending cuts and higher rates on taxes for the wealthy," he said.

"A balanced approach has achieved more than $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction," the president continued. "That's more than halfway towards the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists and elected officials from both parties believe is required to stabilize our debt."

Obama called on Congress to finish the job with a balanced mix of spending cuts and more tax reform. Though he favors a balanced approach that will solve the problem, the president said, he is realistic.

"I know that a full budget may not be finished before March 1," he said. "And unfortunately, that's the date when a series of harmful automatic cuts to job-creating investments in defense spending ... are scheduled to take effect."

If Congress cannot act immediately on a bigger package, Obama said, "then I believe that they should at least pass a smaller package of spending cuts and tax reforms that would delay the economically damaging effects of the sequester for a few more months until Congress finds a way to replace these cuts with a smarter solution."

There's no reason "that the jobs of thousands of Americans who work in national security or education or clean energy -- not to mention the growth of the entire economy -- should be put in jeopardy just because folks in Washington couldn't come together," he added. "Our economy right now is headed in the right direction, and it will stay that way, as long as there aren't any more self-inflicted wounds coming out of Washington."

 

PENTAGON SAYS SEQUESTRATION PLANNING HURTS PENTAGON

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Spokesman: Sequestration Planning Hinders Pentagon
By Amaani Lyle
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22, 2013 - Preparations under way for the looming threat of major across-the-board Pentagon spending cuts are "a drag on the department," Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said today.

Congress recently passed legislation delaying the "sequestration" spending cuts until March 1, but $500 billion in defense spending over 10 years still is at stake if Congress fails to agree on an alternative.

""We're investing a great number of manhours, resources and intensive planning for sequestration, which we, of course, hope to avoid," Little told reporters, and the fiscal ripples at the Pentagon expand far beyond Washington.

"When you have [forward deployed] service members who are asking about appropriations, that's a signal to me that [it's] weighing on their minds," Little said. "When sequestration, ... continuing resolutions and appropriations become a discussion point in Kabul, ... Vicenza or on Okinawa, that is a sign [that] this debate in Washington is having a negative effect on troop morale."

Little said the threat of sequestration already has affected morale, time management, planning and even his ability to discuss other matters in his meetings with reporters.

"It's time to move beyond the 'fiscal cliff' and get a deal done," he said.

As sequestration draws closer, Little noted, his level of awareness has increased with regard to service members' worries about their families, their benefits and their ability to perform the mission.

"I think it is a justifiable concern on their part, and responsibility to address it rests with Congress," he said.

'BUDGET GYMNASTICS'

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Air Force Leaders Call for End to 'Budget Gymnastics'
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service


WASHINGTON, Jan. 11, 2013 - The government's "ongoing budget gymnastics" are having an effect on service members, Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley said here today.

Donley and Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, the Air Force chief of staff, said the looming "fiscal cliff" as well as conducting government business under repeated continuing budget resolutions create an atmosphere of unease among Air Force military and civilian personnel.

"Failure to enact a settled budget leads to repeated budget iterations, which, along with the overhanging threat of large and largely arbitrary cuts, creates wasteful churn," Donley said during a Pentagon news conference.

This churn could lead to many airmen voting with their feet and leaving the service, he said. "They see and understand what's going on in Washington," he added. "They're very well-connected. They're the most educated force we have ever had. And they stay connected to what's going on in our Air Force and what's going on in our military [and] what's happening in Washington. ... They are watching this and ... making their own judgments about the process."

The secretary said it is extremely inefficient and disruptive to operate a "$100-plus billion enterprise, which is the United States Air Force, on a budget a month or two at a time."

Welsh said that although re-enlistment remains solid for the service, the burden of deploying time and again since 1990 and working to keep "antique" aircraft such as the B-52 flying is wearing on airmen.

"They're not begging to get out the door," the general said. "Our retention rates are great. They're still proud of who they are and what they do. They express it every single day. But they want to know what's coming."

He said he has been working to keep airmen informed. "They're phenomenally engaged, and so we're trying very hard to keep them informed and improve the communication with them."

"Communication for us right now is absolutely essential internally if we're going to be successful down the road'" the general added. "And so we're working this pretty hard."

U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE PANETTA COMPLAINS ABOUT FISCAL CRISIS

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, brief the press at the Pentagon, Jan. 10, 2013. Panetta and Dempsey discussed the effects of sequestration if it were to take effect at the end of March. DOD photo by Erin Kirk-Cuomo.

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Panetta: Fiscal Crisis Poses Biggest Immediate Threat to DOD
By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 10, 2013 - The "perfect storm of budget uncertainty" howling around his department is the biggest immediate threat facing the U.S. military, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told reporters here today.

Panetta and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stressed during a regular Pentagon press conference that unless Congress acts, the nation's military readiness will be compromised.

The United States has a number of adversaries around the world, Panetta said, "but the most immediate threat to our ability to achieve our mission is fiscal uncertainty: not knowing what our budget will be; not knowing if our budget will be drastically cut; and not knowing whether the strategy that we put in place can survive."

Panetta emphasized that DOD "is doing its part" by implementing over the next decade the $487 billion spending reduction set by Congress. "We designed a strategy; we know what the elements of that strategy are; we built a budget based on that, and we achieved our savings by virtue of that strategy," he said.

But the additional half-trillion-dollar "meat-axe cuts" sequester would trigger still loom "less than 50 days away," the secretary noted.

"While we appreciate ... that both parties came together to delay sequester, the unfortunate thing is sequester itself, and the sequester threat, [was] not removed," Panetta said. "And the prospect ... is undermining our ability to responsibly manage this department."

Two other fiscal crises are meanwhile converging on the nation's forces, he added:

- Because Congress didn't approve an appropriations act for fiscal 2013, DOD has been operating under a continuing resolution and will do so at least through March 27. The continuing resolution funds operations at fiscal 2012 levels, instead of the higher proposed fiscal 2013 levels Pentagon officials had anticipated.

- The debt-ceiling crisis, Panetta said, "could create even further turmoil that could impact on our budget and our economy."

Looking at all three factors, the secretary said simply, "We have no idea what the hell is going to happen." But DOD leaders do know that the worst-case scenario would mean "serious harm" to military readiness, he said.

Panetta noted defense strategy places the highest priority on operations and maintenance funding as the key to a ready force. He described the triple threat facing those funds:

- If Congress fails to pass an appropriations bill for fiscal 2013 and instead extends the continuing resolution through the fiscal year, "overall operating accounts would decrease by about 5 percent ... about $11 billion that would come out of [operations and maintenance funds]."

- If sequester occurs, "We would have to cut, in this fiscal year, another 9 percent, almost $18 billion from ... these operating accounts as well."

- To protect funding for the war in Afghanistan from required cuts, "We would again have to cut another 5 percent, another $11 billion, from readiness money available in the active-duty base budget, and more for the Army and the Marine Corps."

Panetta summed up: "We're looking at a 19 to 20 percent reduction in the base budget operating dollars for active units, including a cut of what looks like almost 30 percent for the Army."

The secretary said practical results of these cuts would be less training for units not imminently deploying to Afghanistan; less shipboard training for all but the highest priority missions; less pilot training and fewer flight hours; curtailed ship maintenance and disruption to research and weapons modernization programs.

Civilian employees would also take a hit, he said: unpaid layoffs, which the government calls furloughs, would put civilian employees temporarily out of work. This "would further harm our readiness, and create hardship on them and their families," Panetta noted.

A plan is in place to implement such layoffs if sequester happens, the secretary said. "This action is strictly precautionary," he said. "I want to make that clear: It's precautionary. But I have an obligation to ... let Congress know that we may have to do that, and I very much hope that we will not have to furlough anyone. But we've got to be prepared to do that if we face this situation."

Panetta said the net result of sequester under a continuing resolution would be "what I said we should not do with the defense budget, which is to hollow out the defense force of this nation." Rather than let that happen, Panetta added, DOD leaders have decided to take steps to minimize the damage that would follow Congressional inaction.

"We still have an obligation to protect this country," the secretary said. "So for that reason, I've asked the military services and the other components to immediately begin implementing prudent measures that will help mitigate our budget risk."

Panetta said he has directed any actions taken "must be reversible to the extent feasible and must minimize harmful effects on readiness."

But, he added, "We really have no choice but to prepare for the worst." First steps to containing budget risk will include cutting back on facility maintenance, freezing civilian hiring and delaying some contract awards, the secretary said.

Panetta has also directed the services to develop detailed plans for how they will implement sequester-triggered cuts, if required, he said, "because there will be so little time to respond in the current fiscal year. I mean, we're almost halfway through the fiscal year."

The secretary said the intensive planning effort now under way will ensure the military is prepared to accomplish its core missions.

"I want to emphasize, however, that ... no amount of planning that we do can fully offset the harm that would result from sequestration, if that happens," he added.

Panetta said U.S. service members are working and fighting, and some are dying, every day.

"Those of us in Washington need to have the same courage as they do to do the right thing and try to protect the security of this country," he added. "We must ensure we have the resources we need to defend the nation and meet our commitments to our troops, to our civilian employees, and to their families, after more than a decade of war."

Congress must pass a balanced deficit reduction plan, de-trigger sequester, and pass the appropriations bills for fiscal 2013, he said.

"I'm committed to do whatever I can in the time I have remaining [in office] to try to work with the Congress to ... resolve these issues," Panetta said. "We have a vital mission to perform, one that the American people expect and that they are entitled to, which is to protect their safety and to protect our national security. Congress must be a partner in that mission. I'd love to be able to do this alone, but I can't."

Dempsey offered his view of what wreckage the fiscal "storm" would leave behind.

"As I've said before, sequestration is a self-inflicted wound on national security," the chairman said. "It's an irresponsible way to manage our nation's defense. It cuts blindly, and it cuts bluntly. It compounds risk, and it ... compromises readiness. In fact, readiness is what's now in jeopardy. We're on the brink of creating a hollow force, the very thing we said we must avoid."

Dempsey noted sequestration may now "hit" while the department, under a continuing resolution, is also implementing "the deep cuts already made in the Budget Control Act" and fighting a war in Afghanistan.

"Any one of these would be a serious challenge on its own," Dempsey said. "Together, they set the conditions for readiness to pass a tipping point as early as March."

DOD won't shortchange those in combat, and will resource those who are next to deploy while still caring for wounded warriors and their families, the chairman said.

"But for the rest of the force, operations, maintenance and training will be gutted," Dempsey said. "We'll ground aircraft, return ships to port, and sharply curtail training across the force. ... [W]e may be forced to furlough civilians at the expense of maintenance and even health care. We'll be unable to reset the force following a decade of war."

Military readiness will begin to erode immediately, Dempsey said, telling reporters, "Within months, we'll be less prepared. Within a year, we'll be unprepared."

The crisis "can and must be avoided, the sooner, the better," the chairman said.

"We need budget certainty; we need time to absorb the budget reductions; we need the flexibility to manage those reductions across the entire budget," he said. "We have none of these things right now. And without them, we have no choice but to steel ourselves for the consequences."

SEQUESTRATION ON HOLD

Left:  Pentagon Spokesman George Little

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Legislators Avoid Fiscal Cliff, Delay Sequester Process

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
 
WASHINGTON, Jan. 2, 2013 - Congress has avoided the fiscal cliff, but Pentagon Press Secretary George Little called on the body to continue efforts to permanently eliminate the threat of sequestration.

The House of Representatives passed a Senate proposal that avoided the fiscal cliff last night. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is pleased Congress acted, Little said, but notes there is more work to be done.

Had Congress not acted, sequestration -- taking an additional $500 billion from the DOD budget -- would have kicked in. The legislation passed yesterday delays that process for two months. Panetta hopes that within that time Congress can find a way to end sequestration once and for all, Little said. If not, sequestration will trigger automatically, leaving little time to make the required cuts.

"While we have whistled by this fiscal cliff, we need to keep our eye on the ball and make sure sequestration does not take effect, ever," Little said.

Little emphasized that the threat of sequestration still hangs over the department.

"It is very important that we avoid sequester permanently," he said. "This can't be a situation where we delay every two months. The specter of sequestration -- of guns to the head -- none of that is anything that we welcome. We hope to avoid it at all costs."

Panetta has repeatedly stressed that sequestration would be devastating to national defense.

The department was preparing for the worst, Little said. If sequestration were triggered, he said, DOD would try to make monetary reductions via furloughs rather than in reductions in force.

"We were prepared to do the prudent thing and tell our civilian workforce that many of them might face some kind of furlough if sequestration had taken effect," Little said.

"Our first assumption is we are not going to try to punish a small group of civilian employees by firing them because Congress can't do its job," he said. "Furlough is the preferred course of action."

The potential for furloughs shows that sequestration isn't just some abstract circumstance affecting only dollars and decimal points, he said.

"This is something that will have an impact on real people, doing real work and on real missions in the department," Little said.

The deal that Congress reached is likely to have some effect on the fiscal 2013 defense budget and for planning for the fiscal 2014 budget, Little said. DOD officials are waiting for guidance on this from the Office of Management and Budget, he added.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PREPARES FOR SEQUESTRATION

Credit:  U.S. Navy.

FROM: U.S. AIR FORCE

DOD prepares for potential sequestration
by Senior Master Sgt. David Byron
Air Force Public Affairs Agency

12/10/2012 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- The Office of Management and Budget has instructed the Department of Defense to pursue internal planning to meet required budget cuts if sequestration goes into effect Jan. 3.

"We are at the very start of this process," said Dr. George Little, acting assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, during a Pentagon press availability here, Dec. 5. "We don't have all the details firmed up. Naturally, we hope very much that sequestration will be avoided and we don't enter that phase."

Sequestration is a mechanism enacted by Congress that will initiate severe across-the-government budget cuts if Congress and the president are unable to pass a budget that meets the requirements of the Budget Control Act of 2011.

For the DOD, sequestration would cut the defense budget by $500 billion over the next 10 years. These cuts would be in addition to the nearly $500 billion in cuts, during the same time frame, already directed by the 2011 BCA.

DOD officials have already been considering possible effects of sequestration, including communicating impacts to the DOD work force.

"Our focus has been on examining the potential impacts of sequestration," Little said. "We know what the potential impacts might be, and that helps us create a baseline for what we need to plan against."

He explained that although the core of the effort this month is planning against the possible cuts, officials still hold hope that Congress and the administration can come to a resolution avoiding sequestration.

If the cuts do go into effect Jan. 3, Little said the DOD should still have the first couple of months in 2013 to determine the best way to handle the effects.

"Not every consequence of sequestration would occur on Jan. 3," he said. "People will still come to work, we think, at this stage. This will be a phased-in approach to dealing with sequestration, if it were to take place."

Whatever the effect, he said DOD officials are committed to communicating the issues to the internal DOD community as soon as they are clear.

"We have a lot of internal constituencies to reach out to -- service members, their families and the civilian employees of the Department of Defense -- and we're talking active, Guard and Reserve," said Little. "Three million people work inside this department. One out of 100 Americans work for the secretary of defense. That is a big number and it's a big communication challenge should sequestration take effect."

Little said he has stood up a communication task force to take part in the planning process.

"We expect, through our planning efforts, to identify not just numbers, but also how we communicate it to our three million-person workforce, and prepare them for what may come down the pike," he said. "We're going to try to do what we can, as quickly as possible, to define precisely who we need to talk to and when."

U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PANETTA MAKES COMMENTS ON SYRIA AND SEQUESTRATION

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta poses for photos with the U.S. Naval Academy Midshipmen cheerleaders and band during a pep rally held in the halls of the Pentagon, Dec. 6, 2012. DOD photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Panetta Discusses Syria Situation, Sequestration
By Terri Moon Cronk
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6, 2012 - Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta today repeated the U.S. government's growing concern that Syrian forces loyal to President Bashar Assad may be preparing to use chemical weapons on their own people.

Without getting into specific intelligence, Panetta told reporters at a news conference at the Department of Veterans Affairs there is no question that "as the opposition advances, in particular in Damascus, that the [Assad] regime might very well consider the use of chemical weapons." He added that what the U.S. knows "raises series concerns that this is being considered."

Panetta's comments came three days after President Barack Obama warned the Assad regime that there would be consequences for such a move, and that Assad himself would be held accountable.

Today, Panetta expanded on that warning.

"The president has made very clear that the Assad regime ought not to make the mistake of thinking that somehow it can use chemical weapons on its own people and get away with that. The whole world is watching," the defense secretary said.

Panetta said he would not comment on the consequences if Assad were to use weapons of mass destruction.

"But I think it's fair enough to say that the use of those weapons would cross a red line for us," he added.

The warnings to the Assad regime come as reports suggest opposition forces are closing in on Damascus and that the nearly two-year-old civil war is increasingly threatening Assad's inner circle.

On another matter, Panetta was asked today about the impact of sequestration on defense programs, should it occur.

"There is no question that if sequestration happens, it will impact those who are coming home [from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan]," he said. "It's going to impact on what we're going to be able to provide them."

Panetta compared the automatic budget cuts triggered by sequestration to a "meat-axe approach."

If implemented, sequestration would "have a serious impact in terms of those [service members] coming home, the programs that serve them, the support system that we have not only for them, but for their families," he added.

"It's for that reason, obviously, that our continuing hope is that the leadership in this country comes together and finds an agreement that avoids this deficit cliff that we're hanging on," Panetta said.